Popper deserves street cred, for being a good observer, I will say. Also, consider that physicists who write for non-physicists, tend to know Popper, well enough to use hos name or quote him. I was thinking that John Baez, did use Popper's name, a time or two, when defending his conformist views of physics (Though I bet he'd call himself a no-shit guy), I'd just chuck him (for my own nefarious, purposes, in the A-hole pile). Most often, physicists, don't have to be nasty (tho' they feel they do!!!), and that's what makes ballgames, as we say in the States. There are philosopher guys, like the Austrian, Rudiger Vaas, and Canadian philosopher, John Leslie, who studied physics, and wanted their knowledge to inform their philosophy. I think they succeeded.
Then there is the Austrian experimentalist, Anton Zeilinger, who a year ago was looking for a philosopher, to better. explain, the results of his experients to the world, and perhaps, other, scientists? I don't know if he's got a book, coming forth of not? Explaining, what you do, and what it means are two different things (agreed?) and explaining theory and experiementation to the unwashed public seems infuriating to many bench scientists. An example of this is the quantum. Nobody gets more pissed off (not pissed-drunk in the English verbage) as physicists, explaining why, for example, quantum computation is impossible unless we invoke very cold temperatures. I say to myself: "Wait! This can't be right. Because the quantum is usually comprised of the actions of photons and electrons, and they are subatomic, which by definition is quantum. Sticks, bird poop, rocks, have the flow of electrons, right? So, thus quantum computing must be happening. No! idiot! Then, in forums such as this they sulk away, probably feeling sullied by the experience of dealing with ignorant riff-raff, such as me. What I didn't understand and didn't discover till this year, is the difference between quantum computation, and quantum effects. Ah! Ok! >From my experiences, philosophers make decent observers, and try to take human >meaning out from the science. Many scientists would say, if they are Not >looking for grants, is that: There is no meaning, you idiot!. Which, sadly, >sometimes, seems the truth. Yet, I would hope that occasionally, perhaps >foolishly, we, the unwashed, can derrive some meaning from the grand pursuit. Mitch -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 12:06 am Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote: > Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I forget his name. Understandable, philosophers are not very memorable. And no philosopher invented falsifiability, some just made a big deal about something rather obvious that had already been in use by scientists for centuries; although way back then they were called Natural Philosophers, a term I wish we still used. > Kark Popper! That's it! There is not a scientist alive that learned to do science by reading Karl Popper. Popper was just a reporter, he observed how scientists work and described what he saw. And I don't think Popper was exactly a fount of wisdom. In chapter 37 of his 1976 (1976!!) book "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography" Popper says: "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program". Those are Popper's own words not mine, and this is not something to make Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science in general proud. Finally, two years later in 1978 at the age of 76 and 119 years after the publication of "The Origin Of Species", perhaps the greatest scientific book ever written, Popper belatedly said: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation”. Better late than never I guess, he came to the conclusion that this Darwin whippersnapper might be on to something after all in his 1978 (1978!!) lecture "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind". > On free will, I simply say that free will is knowing what you love or hate. In a previous post I said "a particular set of likes and dislikes that in the English language is called "will". "Will" is not the problem, it's "free will" that's gibberish". > Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events. Free will doesn't seem to mean anything, not one damn thing; but a little thing like not knowing what the hell "free will" is supposed to be never prevents philosophers passionately arguing if humans have it or not. Apparently the philosophers on this list have decided to first determine if humans have free will or not and only when that question has been entirely settled will they go on and try to figure out what on earth they were talking about. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.